IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/lawdev/v12y2019i3p797-818n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Democratization of Foreign Policy: India’s Experience with Paradiplomacy

Author

Listed:
  • Natarajan Aishwarya

    (Research associate, Rule of Law Programme Asia, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Singapore)

Abstract

Since the economic reforms of the 1990s, Indian states have largely contributed to India’s foreign policy decision-making in two critical areas, namely, economic diplomacy and influencing India’s foreign policy with its neighbours. Given India’s growing importance in the world arena, one would assume that Indian states will continue to have an increased role in its foreign policy decisions. However, the Indian Constitution was framed with the idea of a strong union government and the power to drive foreign policy initiatives continues to remain under the exclusive purview of the union government. There is no institutional framework that facilitates the involvement of the Indian states’ in foreign policy decision-making. States’ involvement is usually on an ad hoc basis and often pushed through by strong state level leaders or by the coalition compulsions. The article examines the Indian paradiplomacy experience to note that paradiplomacy has the potential to democratize foreign policy decision-making only if it is supported by a strong institutional framework. A fragmented practice of paradiplomacy to suit immediate political needs neither promotes democratization of foreign policy nor does it allows for a meaningful engagement of Indian states in the global governance debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Natarajan Aishwarya, 2019. "Democratization of Foreign Policy: India’s Experience with Paradiplomacy," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 797-818, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:12:y:2019:i:3:p:797-818:n:6
    DOI: 10.1515/ldr-2019-0044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2019-0044
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ldr-2019-0044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:12:y:2019:i:3:p:797-818:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.